Call it what you want -- anti-gay or religious rights -- but if Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signs a controversial bill, you might not be calling Arizona the home of the 2015 Super Bowl.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, S.B. 1062, is the current controversy du jour out of Arizona, and the National Football League is with the opposition.

“Our policies emphasize tolerance and inclusiveness and prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation or any other improper standard,” NFL spokesman Greg Aiello told USA Today. “We are following the issue in Arizona and will continue to do so should the bill be signed into law, but will decline further comment at this time.”

Sign Up for the Politics Today newsletter!
The Arizona Super Bowl Host committee released a statement saying it disagreed with the bill and its impact on Arizona’s economy.

“On that matter we have heard loud and clear from our various stakeholders that adoption of this legislation would not only run contrary to that goal but deal a significant blow to the state's economic growth potential,” a committee spokesperson said. “We do not support this legislation.”

Arizona is currently slated to host the 2015 Super Bowl at Glendale’s University of Phoenix Stadium.

Opponents of the bill contend that it will allow Arizona businesses to refuse service to homosexual customers.

But, as with most bills in Congress, the attack ads have little to do with the actual legislation.

Proponents of the bill claim that no, businesses will not have carte blanche to refuse service to anyone they disagree with based on religious grounds.

Specifically, proponents claim that there is nothing in Arizona’s current laws that prevent businesses from discriminating against anyone — and yet, strangely enough, discrimination isn’t happening.

Apparently, businesses in Arizona have wanted to discriminate but have just been waiting for a bill to allow them to do so — which this bill does not. Also, what business would quietly wait to discriminate?

“Business owners do not want to deny service to gays,” the Christian Post wrote. “This is not because they fear government sanction. Rather, it is because: 1) Their religious, ethical or moral beliefs tell them it is wrong to deny service; and/or, 2) the profit motive — turning away customers is no way to run a business.”

I live in Northern California. Saturday I got up for work and walked downstairs into my living room to get ready at four in the morning. I noticed that my dog was agitated and sniffing at the bottom of the front door. I looked out of the window and saw a white splotch moving around in my front yard. I pressed my face to the glass and saw that it was a cow walking through my front yard, maybe a foot away from my porch. It was a Hereford. It looked like this:

I left it alone (****ing gigantic cow) and it wandered off into an olive orchard. California is fairly diverse.

. So entertainment created in publicly funded stadiums is now private property.

Free-market my ass.

So a feature film shot in a national park is not private property?

****ing dumb bitch.

__________________
"When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read 'all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.' When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty – to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.”--Abraham Lincoln

I was wondering if the NFL gets pressure from lawmakers to be more PC. So I googled it and sure enough, they do. Here's an example--pressure on them to publically support the change to the name of the Redskins.

"The National Football League can no longer ignore this and perpetuate the use of this name as anything but what it is: a racial slur," the letter stated.

Cantwell told the newspaper the Indian Affairs Committee would "definitely" examine the NFL's tax-exempt status as a means to apply pressure....

That group introduced a bill last March that would "cancel the federal registrations of trademarks using the word redskin in reference to Native Americans."

Free-market involves ownership of private property so one can have the freedom to do or not do such things. So they can get their privileges cancelled if they don't obey.

I live in Northern California. Saturday I got up for work and walked downstairs into my living room to get ready at four in the morning. I noticed that my dog was agitated and sniffing at the bottom of the front door. I looked out of the window and saw a white splotch moving around in my front yard. I pressed my face to the glass and saw that it was a cow walking through my front yard, maybe a foot away from my porch. It was a Hereford. It looked like this:

I left it alone (****ing gigantic cow) and it wandered off into an olive orchard. California is fairly diverse.

You said "there is little choice for the consumer to go elsewhere with their money". The consumer has literally unlimited choices for where they go with their money.

Not in this case.

To my knowledge there is only one pro-football outdoor league in the US.
They'd have to not watch or switch to indoor, Canadian, college or semi-professional. It's not an unlimited list though.

But again, this topic is not about the consumer or viewers. If it were, it's another matter.

This is about a league applying political pressure to a state entity, because they're really an adjunct or dependent on govt and have to. ( even though owners make back more than the money they take from taxpayers to build their stadiums.)

They're deciding their politics more. Then they're using their money to influence it as a form of political protest. Not saying they don't have this right to decide this but let's be honest and call it what it is. And it is not free market...it's activism. It's no different than a corporation deciding to use their money to support a candidate and/or later influence that candidate once in office.

But really it's no different than placing economic sanctions on another nation if you don't like their way of life, values or politics.

A boycott is an act of voluntarily abstaining from using, buying, or dealing with a person, organization, or country as an expression of protest, usually for political reasons. It can be a form of consumer activism.

The NFL doesn't want to be associated with discrimination, it's as simple as that, you dolt.

This thread shows how phony BEP's act really is. She's against the Civil Rights Act and ok with businesses being able to refuse service to black customers--because that should be their right to make such decisions.

But for some reason, she's upset the NFL might decide it doesn't want to be associated with AZ. This is really about her personal feelings rather than any political and economic philosophy she claims to believe in based on principle.

Did you say the same thing about Chik -fil-a? I can't seem to remember.

That's privately owned. Remember it was gay activists that boycotted them first, because the owners private actions through their charitable foundation that gave money to certain groups gay activists didn't like. People responded back by eating there, to counter the boycott. I did call for viewers to boycott the NFL in response.